Why? I think our wrapper can do pretty much the same than slf4j does. Having a public static Log log = LogFactory.getLog(MyClass.class) can easily be supported by our logging framework.
Then, any known logging framework has the most possible information available, whatever it does with it. If a logging framework use a static position of the stack trace, to gather its information, is bound to fail anyway and has to be considered a bad implementation, no? AFAIK, in terms of cl class loader issues, having a static log ist not bad if the logging facade has been loaded with the same class-loader than the library were loaded. Which should always be the case with our own wrapper. Yes, I know, we end up having a slf4j within myfaces. But I see no point having a dependency to such a simple API - which exactly adds no value, but forces every cl user to setup the sfl4j-over-cl bridge. IMHO, the java way to do it is to provide our own simple logging wrapper, by using jul as default impl. I know that jul sucks, but this then can easily be customized by the developer. Mojarra also uses jul, no? So good or bad, this i something we have to deal with anyway - providing a pluggable logging api is fair enough then. I think, most of the time the user will not care and just start using jul. Too bad that SUN did not manage to provide a logging api which has been widely accepted :-( Ciao, Mario Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 05. Juni 2009 20:22 An: MyFaces Development Betreff: Re: slf4j and myfaces @mario: which logging frameworks would be supported by such a wrapper. i can just mention that there are logging frameworks out there which internally force an exception and statically use entry x of the call hierarchy - so such a wrapper would lead to wrong logging information. regards, gerhard (after reformulating the previous mail quite quickly the text wasn't perfect - but i think you know what i mean...) 2009/6/5 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com<mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>> @matthias: yes - that's the reason for my comment: "...external logging framework..." @udo: imo we should discuss the logging topic before we have a release which already uses slf4j - especially the suggestion of mario sounds interesting. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2009/6/5 Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at<mailto:ma...@ops.co.at>> Hi! Could one please eloberate a little bit more in detail what the pros are of slf4j? Notice, I switched to it in our company project - but always using the commons-logging api and just used the slf4j-over-cl wrapper. This is something wich is possible for each and ever user of myfaces already, just by adjusting the depencendcies correctly. Lately I even switched to my own logging wrapper, but this is another story. In the end, everything still uses the cl API which is proven to work fine. (I created the org.apache.commons.logging package structure with my own classes - which for sure is not possible for myfaces!). I still think, that using the cl api is the best we can do for our users. If they then use cl as implementation - and if this is considered "good" - is another story, but nothing WE should anticipate. As far as I can say the cl api is rock solid, just the class-loader stuff is a pain. But (again AFAIK), slf4j does not solve it, it just does not deal with it. Before we start using any other logging api I'd suggest to build our own thin myfaces-logging wrapper where one then can easily plug in log4j, cl, jul (java utils ogging) or whatever - we do not even have to provide any other impl than for jul. As a plus, this then will remove a dependency - a dependency to any logging framework - which - in terms of dependencies can be considered as a "good" thing, no? Ciao, Mario Von: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com<mailto:gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Freitag, 05. Juni 2009 17:18 An: MyFaces Development Betreff: slf4j and myfaces hello all, again the logging-framework topic :) there were several discussions about it and i'm not aware of an agreement. udo wrote [1]: >replace commons-logging with slf4j as i know we "agreed" on using one logging framework dependency for all myfaces projects. if i remember correctly, most of us prefer slf4j. -> i suggest to vote about using slf4j in all myfaces projects. (at least if a project is using an external logging framework.) regards, gerhard [1] http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Trinidad-vs-Tobago-p23884581.html
